Cydia

The latest rumors from abroad are claiming that Apple will launch three new smartphones in 2013 including: a next-generation iPhone, a cheaper model handset, and a surprise large-format device with a 4.8-inch screen tentatively dubbed the “iPhone Math.” The China Times, citing upstream supply chain sources, reports that Apple will be unveiling the three iPhones at staggered launches throughout the year, with the first two being the next-generation iPhone and the 4.8 “phablet” (phone/tablet) device. The sources are claiming a third model with a 12-megapixel camera will debut before the holiday season, though not much is known about the product at this time.

The next-generation iPhone seems inevitable and many recent reports have suggested Apple may be debuting a more affordable handset this year. This report was the first time the “iPhone Math” was mentioned and truth be told, it seems highly unlikely that Apple would release such a device. While details of the mystery device’s specifications remain scarce, sources claim it will feature a large display measuring at least 4.8 inches diagonally. Specs such as the form-factor and screen resolution remain unknown but the device is said to be sporting a 12-megapixel camera with lenses built by Largan Precision. The name doesn’t seem very logical, neither does the June launch date the device is said to have, especially given the issues that Apple seems to be having with the iPhone 5’s 4-inch display.

The cheaper more cost-effective iPhone, albeit leaving many skeptical, seems to be a possibility as many are pointing towards Apple needing to make a presence in the emerging markets such as China. Reports have been pointing towards specific parts and manufacturer deadlines for said device as well as the next-generation iPhone. It should be noted that rumors, especially ones from overseas, should all be taken with a grain of salt as very few of them come to fruition.

Ultimately, we’ll need to be patient and see what Apple announces and releases by being patient.

We're not gonna do this again, Suby. Believe what you will. I do this everyday for work and I find about 50% still 4:3 or wider than 16:9 on the sites I work with. In short there are title bars everywhere on videos out there on the web. On my 4S there were less title bars. On a Galaxy S3 and Note 2 there are less title bars. I'm glad you believe the taller but not wider screen of iP5 is better for all applications. I'll never change your mind.. That's fine!

We're not gonna do this again, Suby. Believe what you will. I do this everyday for work and I find about 50% still 4:3 or wider than 16:9 on the sites I work with. In short there are title bars everywhere on videos out there on the web. On my 4S there were less title bars. On a Galaxy S3 and Note 2 there are less title bars. I'm glad you believe the taller but not wider screen of iP5 is better for all applications. I'll never change your mind.. That's fine!

Peace..

The fact is 4:3 is NOT wider than 16:9. And if a format was wider than 16:9 you would have bigger blocks on the top and bottom.

At this point it isn't about opinion. I showed you proof. You have still yet to show one screen shot, one link or anything other than saying your a video pro.

You said do searches and I did. I found that 2 videos out of 200 searching random topics were as you suggested we're 16:9 or wider formats.

As a matter of fact you even said that music videos are more popularly uploaded in 4:3 aspect. I couldn't find one.

So really this last response after I showed examples and references just shows you have absolutely no base off what your saying because you have not come back in this friendly debate with anything other than words of your own.

Ill be more than happy to admit I'm wrong if you show me what your talking about.

This is not much of a friendly debate, anymore. You are getting more and more sarcastic and arrogant in your responses (but that's you - ).

Your own examples prove my point that a significant % have title bars (I'll admit my 50% number could be high ). But my proof is right before your eyes. We're just explaining it differently. You're making value judgements now and that's where I stop. That's why you get into so many fights around here with your often imperious attitude, bro. I know - I can do the same. You have proved my point with your own photos. I can't make you see it, bro! :-/.. Your linked examples also only show the 'player' on YouTube search screen but not what the video will look like ON a given phone once you've rotated the phone to Landscape and the player's playing. That's harder to prove - but let me see if I can find a way to take a picture of my phone when in YouTube player mode for several examples using my wife's phone or even 'screen capture' should work.

In all of this bickering, Suby, I don't want us to lose what the original debate was about. You do agree that videos that are in 4:3 aspect ratio will have greater title barring on a iPhone 5 than iPhone 4S. Right? And we both agree that 16:9 videos will have less title barring on an ip5 than 4S. Right?

We're done, Suby. This has not been a friendly debate. Your own examples prove my point that at least 50% have title bars. My proof is right before your eyes. We're just explaining it differently. You're making value judgements now and that's where I stop. That's why you get into so many fights around here with your often imperious attitude, bro. I know - I can do the same. You have proved my point with your own photos. I can't make you see it, bro! :-/.. Your screen shots also only show the 'player' on YouTube but not what the video will look like ON a given phone once you've rotated the phone to Landscape. That's harder to prove - but let me see if I can find a way to take a picture of my phone when in YouTube player mode for several examples.

Please keep making great themes, Suby! You're a great designer. Leave the video work to the pros.

Again your response makes no sense. Your argument has been this entire time that there are less title bars on 4:3 devices than tr Iphone 5.

I proved you wrong using your method of collecting this data a page or two back (do a search and look at the first 30 results)

I did that and every video was 16:9 or wider. Just so you know if there is title bars at the top and bottom that means the video had to be reduced in size to fit the video in the screen with out clipping anything off. So if you shrink the video to fit the width that would make the height smaller than the screen thus creating title blocks.

So if there is title blocks on the iPhone 5 on the top and bottom. They will be even bigger on 4:3 devices. This is 100% fact not opinion.

If a video was 4:3 format you would see blocks on the left and right of the video to fit a 16:9 player Because 4:3 video is taller than 16:9. So in order to not clip the top and bottom off the video is reduced in size to fit the height thus having blocks on the left and right side.

This point can't be argued because its just fact.

Here is a other example. Mickey Mouse club house is broadcasted in 4:3 format. On the iPhone 5 the title blocks are on the left and right side NOT the top and bottom

Suby - I significantly edited my post within a few minutes of posting. You must respond very FAST to still have the original in your quote there. So please read (below) which is what I intended for you to read. I think we're getting too far past the original friendly debate we were having. Of COURSE 4:3 has title bars on left and right when in 16:9. Who has said otherwise?? Not me. (In certain case -some players can stretch 4:3 WIDE to attempt to make it fit. I see this a lot too. But that's a different issue). I was pointing out that in your examples there were also a lot of examples of WIDER than 16:9 too (that of course) have the top/bottom bars bringing the total % of videos not properly sized to 16:9 up closer to 50% as you examples clearly show. But here's my last post in [[ ]] - as I intended you to see it. Please respond specifically to the last paragraph..

[[[This is not much of a friendly debate, anymore. You are getting more and more sarcastic and arrogant in your responses (but that's you - ).

Your own examples prove my point that a significant % have title bars (I'll admit my 50% number could be high ). But my proof is right before your eyes. We're just explaining it differently. You're making value judgements now and that's where I stop. That's why you get into so many fights around here with your often imperious attitude, bro. I know - I can do the same. You have proved my point with your own photos. I can't make you see it, bro! :-/.. Your linked examples also only show the 'player' on YouTube search screen but not what the video will look like ON a given phone once you've rotated the phone to Landscape and the player's playing. That's harder to prove - but let me see if I can find a way to take a picture of my phone when in YouTube player mode for several examples using my wife's phone or even 'screen capture' should work.

In all of this bickering, Suby, I don't want us to lose what the original debate was about. You do agree that videos that are in 4:3 aspect ratio will have greater title barring on a iPhone 5 than iPhone 4S. Right? And we both agree that 16:9 videos will have less title barring on an ip5 than 4S. Right?]]]

Suby - I significantly edited my post within a few minutes of posting. You must respond very FAST to still have the original in your quote there. So please read (below) which is what I intended for you to read. I think we're getting too far past the original friendly debate we were having. Of COURSE 4:3 has title bars on left and right when in 16:9. Who has said otherwise?? Not me. (In certain case -some players can stretch 4:3 WIDE to attempt to make it fit. I see this a lot too. But that's a different issue). I was pointing out that in your examples there were also a lot of examples of WIDER than 16:9 too (that of course) have the top/bottom bars bringing the total % of videos not properly sized to 16:9 up closer to 50% as you examples clearly show. But here's my last post in [[ ]] - as I intended you to see it. Please respond specifically to the last paragraph..

[[[This is not much of a friendly debate, anymore. You are getting more and more sarcastic and arrogant in your responses (but that's you - ).

Your own examples prove my point that a significant % have title bars (I'll admit my 50% number could be high ). But my proof is right before your eyes. We're just explaining it differently. You're making value judgements now and that's where I stop. That's why you get into so many fights around here with your often imperious attitude, bro. I know - I can do the same. You have proved my point with your own photos. I can't make you see it, bro! :-/.. Your linked examples also only show the 'player' on YouTube search screen but not what the video will look like ON a given phone once you've rotated the phone to Landscape and the player's playing. That's harder to prove - but let me see if I can find a way to take a picture of my phone when in YouTube player mode for several examples using my wife's phone or even 'screen capture' should work.

In all of this bickering, Suby, I don't want us to lose what the original debate was about. You do agree that videos that are in 4:3 aspect ratio will have greater title barring on a iPhone 5 than iPhone 4S. Right? And we both agree that 16:9 videos will have less title barring on an ip5 than 4S. Right?]]]

I check modmyi before I go to work. So just happened to check back.

Also here is your original point I argue

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

In my view they will eventually need to go a little wider on the phone (but no taller) to return the phone's aspect ratio to be more compatible with a lot if the video market. So many videos are not true 16:9 wide screen yet. So they look wrong on my iP5. Of course true widescreen 16:9 stuff looks great on the 'taller only' iP5 screen. But they should have made it both wider and taller.

I argue this because and as I showed that majority videos are uploaded in 16:9 or wider. If a video has title blocks on the top and bottom of the iPhone 5 this means that the format is wider than 16:9 (and much wider than 4:3).

You made a comment that you base you opinion off doing a search on YouTube and taking the first 30 videos.

Well my findings are that 98 percent of first 30 videos on a random topic search on YouTube are 16:9 or wider.

So I fail to see how 4:3 has better compatibility with videos over 16:9.

I argue this because and as I showed that majority videos are uploaded in 16:9 or wider. If a video has title blocks on the top and bottom of the iPhone 5 this means that the format is wider than 16:9 (and much wider than 4:3).

You made a comment that you base you opinion off doing a search on YouTube and taking the first 30 videos.

Well my findings are that 98 percent of first 30 videos on a random topic search on YouTube are 16:9 or wider.

So I fail to see how 4:3 has better compatibility with videos over 16:9.

That's all

Well we ALMOST agree. Amazing! In 'your' experiment you came out with 98% in something other than 4:3 (but only 50% in true 16:9 - many were wider than 16:9). In mine - it came out to be 60% in 4:3. It's clear, Suby, that the videos we search for and do work with (I use way more sources than YouTube and import my client stuff which often comes in on 4:3) are just different. I will agree with you that the 'general' (non pro) consumer is seeing a LOT more 16:9 out. THANK GOODNESS!!!! Please don't ever get the idea that I don't wish for MORE 16:9!!!!! I DO~~~~!!!!! LOL!. But there is a reason NO OTHER PHONE on the market has used the screen size that Apple chose for their iP5. There is a reason for it. And you're not willing to admit that piece of it. The reason is very simple. NOT enough of the video out there is 16:9 yet to make it a mainstream thing. Since Apple is a FORWARD thinking company they're ANTICIPATING that it WILL be the full standard. And 16:9 looks amazing on iP5.

We just see a different % of 16:9 in the different searches we do. I WAS wrong to tell Simon that ANY SIMPLE video search will prove my % results. That was an overstatement - I'll happily concede that. But still - 4:3 looks WAY 'better adapted' to the phone on an iPhone 4S (Galaxy S3, Note2, etc) and you'll never be able to prove otherwise on that point. 16:9 has huge title bars though on iP4S - so that sucks. We agree... ;-)

Well we ALMOST agree. Amazing! In 'your' experiment you came out with 98% in something other than 4:3 (but only 50% in true 16:9 - many were wider than 16:9). In mine - it came out to be 60% in 4:3. It's clear, Suby, that the videos we search for and do work with (I use way more sources than YouTube and import my client stuff which often comes in on 4:3) are just different. I will agree with you that the 'general' (non pro) consumer is seeing a LOT more 16:9 out. THANK GOODNESS!!!! Please don't ever get the idea that I don't wish for MORE 16:9!!!!! I DO~~~~!!!!! LOL!. But there is a reason NO OTHER PHONE on the market has used the screen size that Apple chose for their iP5. There is a reason for it. And you're not willing to admit that piece of it. The reason is very simple. NOT enough of the video out there is 16:9 yet to make it a mainstream thing. Since Apple is a FORWARD thinking company they're ANTICIPATING that it WILL be the full standard. And 16:9 looks amazing on iP5.

We just see a different % of 16:9 in the different searches we do. I WAS wrong to tell Simon that ANY SIMPLE video search will prove my % results. That was an overstatement - I'll happily concede that. But still - 4:3 looks WAY 'better adapted' to the phone on an iPhone 4S (Galaxy S3, Note2, etc) and you'll never be able to prove otherwise on that point. 16:9 has huge title bars though on iP4S - so that sucks. We agree... ;-)

Can we put it to rest now?

I like everything but one point. If 4:3 videos are exactly the same size on the iPhone 4S and older as it is on the iPhone 5. How is 4:3 video an advantage on i4s and older?

That's my only part I argue. If your using a player that will stretch a video out of its aspect ratio, that is the fault of the software not the iPhone 5 screen size.

This is my major disconnect in our discussion. I just don't see how the iPhone 5 screen hinders video in anyway

Anyway. This is your point of view I can't change that. I beleive people want a wider screen just because they want the "cool" factor. I also beleive your feelings on the video and the iPhone 5 are the minority. Lol.

Hell when I first saw the rumors of the iPhone 5 I hated it. I though going taller was a joke. After having it. For me just kinda makes sense. I'm happy

Okay now HERE'S some nice battery strength readings. More like my iP4 on 4.2.8.
In fairness you can pad your battery strength pics by doing a full charge on your phone (only takes about 40 minutes) BEFORE you go to bed. And then all night long keep it in Do Not Disturb mode which will give you your first 8 to 10 hours of standby time and you still wake up in the morning with 100% battery.

I always wondered why some people were able to get such high standby times. I'll bet they don't, like most people, put it on the charger before we go to bed and leave it on the charger all night which doesn't show any hours of standby time when it's on the charger.

In fairness to sharing achievable results - in this last period of experimenting I also had my SIM out my iphone 5 and over in my jailbroken 4S for about seven hours. So some of these battery life hours would increase for sure without the phone having to power the cellular transmitter.

But at least there's a great deal more hope using Anthony's moderate preference settings listed earlier in the thread and that I listed in the thread I started solely for battery specs. I feel better about the iPhone 5's battery life now and not having to really cripple my phone to get good battery life. You just need to use some sensible preference settings and leave Bluetooth off until you need it to achieve closer to the battery results Apple tells us is possible.

Okay now HERE'S some nice battery strength readings. More like my iP4 on 4.2.8.
In fairness you can pad your battery strength pics by doing a full charge on your phone (only takes about 40 minutes) BEFORE you go to bed. And then all night long keep it in Do Not Disturb mode which will give you your first 8 to 10 hours of standby time and you still wake up in the morning with 100% battery.

I always wondered why some people were able to get such high standby times. I'll bet they don't, like most people, put it on the charger before we go to bed and leave it on the charger all night which doesn't show any hours of standby time when it's on the charger.

In fairness to sharing achievable results - in this last period of experimenting I also had my SIM out my iphone 5 and over in my jailbroken 4S for about seven hours. So some of these battery life hours would increase for sure without the phone having to power the cellular transmitter.

But at least there's a great deal more hope using Anthony's moderate preference settings listed earlier in the thread and that I listed in the thread I started solely for battery specs. I feel better about the iPhone 5's battery life now and not having to really cripple my phone to get good battery life. You just need to use some sensible preference settings and leave Bluetooth off until you need it to achieve closer to the battery results Apple tells us is possible.

All mine I've shared are legit 8 hours of usage.

My phone charges while I sleep. I wake up around 7 am take it off charge and use it all day. It goes back on charge when I go to sleep.

As supposed to padding status. Legit meaning everyday normal usage, not usage that is trying conserve battery life just to show a higher number.

My experimentation is about every day use. Today my reported numbers will be like everyone used their phone - even charging over night just with Anthony's minor preference changes. I'm like you - I want real world results. But even charging before you go to bed and then leaving it off charger over night gets WAAY better battery life on the 5 than any 4S. And using Anthony's tweaks to preferences make a much bigger difference on a 5 than a 4S. So I'm hopeful.

Yes I am aware.

When I have to be at work on time I don't want to have to worry about setting my alarm and DND. also I am a heavy sleeper and my phone vibrating and or lighting up doesn't effect me.

You're still not understanding how DND works. When you choose for favorites to still be active. The phone will still ring and vibrate loudly. Everyone on the favorites list will be treated as if the phone were not in DND. Your alarm will still work perfectly as well.

My experimentation is about every day use. Today my reported numbers will be like everyone used their phone - even charging over night just with Anthony's minor preference changes. I'm like you - I want real world results. But even charging before you go to bed and then leaving it off charger over night gets WAAY better battery life on the 5 than any 4S. And using Anthony's tweaks to preferences make a much bigger difference on a 5 than a 4S. So I'm hopeful.

You're still not understanding how DND works. When you choose for favorites to still be active. The phone will still ring and vibrate loudly. Everyone on the favorites list will be treated as if the phone were not in DND. Your alarm will still work perfectly as well.

When DND first came out it would not play your alarm sound if DND was on. Haven't tried it sense then. It seems now that was fixed

Regardless DND isn't useful for me. There is never a part of the day that I need my phone to not alert me of incoming calls and messages. I keep my phone on silent just cause I find message tones and ring tones a bit intrusive. Unless I know my phone will be on charge away from my pocket or setting then I take it off silent.

I do understand what DND is for, however just not something I find any value in.

When DND first came out it would not play your alarm sound if DND was on. Haven't tried it sense then. It seems now that was fixed

Regardless DND isn't useful for me. There is never a part of the day that I need my phone to not alert me of incoming calls and messages. I keep my phone on silent just cause I find message tones and ring tones a bit intrusive. Unless I know my phone will be on charge away from my pocket or setting then I take it off silent.

I do understand what DND is for, however just not something I find any value in.

Its not necessarily about the value in it other than saving you battery life. That's the angle here, bro. You can still direct DND to let vibration only thru as opposed to ringers if that's what you choose. For me it was only about better battery life without it crippling what I need my phone to do. That's why I use it now - the only reason - better battery life. That has value to everyone. Lol!!